Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1110430I will say I am not a huge fan of how prudish most media, including generic RPGs, tend to be.  Sexual content is intrinsically tied to the existence of biological life.  We don't need to spell out what the PCs do in regards to that any more than we need to spell out them eating or sleeping or breathing or relieving themselves, but it like any biological function CAN be a point of interest, and it makes as little sense to me to gloss over that aspect of life as it does to try to dance around eating and drinking and hide what goes on when they stop at a tavern.  Maybe I'm alone in this, let me know.  Fundamentally my guiding principle is, are my players expressing interest in it, and is it just one or two players while the rest of the PCs fall silent, or are they all interested, and if they are all interested, let them explore whatever they want to explore, whether that's trade negotiations, drinking contests, crafting, sexual activity, or whatever else.

Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1111458https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/10/23/kmart-removes-childrens-bride-halloween-costume-backlash-australia-store/23845794/

This article is about Kmart Australia pulling a wedding dress costume for kids because 250 angry people felt it was "beyond inappropriate", due to being insensitive to "12 million children" being "sold or married off without their consent" each year.  It's unclear whether the people complaining think that the children or parents are attempting to mock child slavery and / or arranged marriages, or whether they think perhaps these costumes will be purchased by those people purchasing enslaved child brides, or if perhaps they're just excessively sensitive a-holes ignoring context and intent, but my money's on that last one.  How DARE a child want to wear a wedding dress for Halloween, or their parent allow such an offensive costume.

So do you have an opinion on the OP topic of gay characters appearing in a module?

Do you think it's a problem and should be stopped?

Or is it OK to have such content in a module?

Quote from: jhkim;1111466So do you have an opinion on the OP topic of gay characters appearing in a module?

Do you think it's a problem and should be stopped?

Or is it OK to have such content in a module?

No, as I thought was clear from the first post you quoted, I have no qualms in anything and everything appearing in modules, including but not limited to sexual content, so as one would expect I have no qualms with sexual orientation appearing in modules as well.  As you had posted in the quote I quoted when indicating I agreed with it to an extent, it is largely a minor background detail which shouldn't need to be danced around.  It is also something that if folks don't like, generally speaking can be gender swapped out of existence.  There is no reason either of the kings referenced by the OP can't just be a woman if they or their players are going to be uncomfortable for some reason or have their enjoyment diminished by it being presented in the manner published.  The same could be said of almost all 'controversial' content, but even in cases where it is not, it's a matter of different strokes for different folks.  If a module is centered around a plot which is inextricably tied to a theme you or your players will struggle with, whether that's sexual orientation, slavery, religion, alien invaders, or Anything else, you can always just not buy it or not play it.  It's perfectly fine, who am I to judge, but under no circumstances would I support content not being made or limitations being put on free expression due to the fact that someone, somewhere may be offended by it or struggle with it, as I attempted to express with my second post.

As a private company, certainly WotC and any other RPG developer is free to limit the themes or content they produce in an attempt to avoid alienating or offending people.  They are also free to go out of their way to include specific content or themes in an attempt to avoid alienating or offending people or to make people feel included.  They can do whatever they want, and typically will go with whatever they feel gives the best business result, as I posted elsewhere.  But should they choose to include content that folks have qualms with, I'll always stand by their right to produce such content in a free market, and their decision to avoid censorship for the sake of appeasement.  This applies regardless of whether or not I personally agree with the content in question, and again for the record I personally have zero qualms of any kind with the existence of a pair of gay gnomes, it seems to me to be one of the tamest things possible for someone to have qualms with.

Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1111458https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/10/23/kmart-removes-childrens-bride-halloween-costume-backlash-australia-store/23845794/

This article is about Kmart Australia pulling a wedding dress costume for kids because 250 angry people felt it was "beyond inappropriate", due to being insensitive to "12 million children" being "sold or married off without their consent" each year.  It's unclear whether the people complaining think that the children or parents are attempting to mock child slavery and / or arranged marriages, or whether they think perhaps these costumes will be purchased by those people purchasing enslaved child brides, or if perhaps they're just excessively sensitive a-holes ignoring context and intent, but my money's on that last one.  How DARE a child want to wear a wedding dress for Halloween, or their parent allow such an offensive costume.  

Never mind that their statistic is off by an order of magnitude (it's 1.2 million globally, not 12 million, and more accurately it's Estimated at being between .5 and 4 million with 1.2 being their best extrapolated figure), never mind that in Australia they have definitively identified roughly 20 human trafficking victims per year and ZERO cases of the trafficking of children in the last 15 years, how dare a child want to wear a pretty wedding dress like her aunt, older sister, or some other loved one, or a parent allow their 4-8 year old child to wallow in ignorance regarding the fate of children in 3rd world countries around the world.

I just thought this nearly the perfect example of how literally anything can be offensive in the mind of the right person.

And how does this relates to gaming?

Quote from: jeff37923;1111491And how does this relates to gaming?

And how does this relates to gaming?

When asking if someone has contributed anything meaningful to a discussion, you might want to take a moment to self reflect, and ask if, by doing so, you are contributing anything meaningful to the discussion yourself.  Otherwise it just REEKS of hypocrisy and lack of self awareness.  To answer your question, though, it relates in that content providers (in this case stores, but similarly applicable to conventions, publishers, or any other content provider) will bend to the will of folks who are outraged at the content being provided far too readily in my opinion, and engage in self censorship for the sake of avoiding offense, no matter how ridiculous that offense may be.  It's a direct parallel to the idea of not producing content which involves sexual orientation for the sake of avoiding offending those who might find such content problematic, as well as a direct response to the claim #3 of the quoted post which indicated that "Everything is disrespectful" to certain people.  The hint, by the way, might be in the final line of the quoted post ;-)

Tangental?  Sure!  But it adds *something* to the conversation, and even if only tangentially relates to gaming and the topic at hand.  How about your post, how does it hold up in that regard?

If this thread goes on any longer, the gnomes will have already gotten a divorce!

BTW, any mention of the gnomes' having a wedding cake in the module?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1111495If this thread goes on any longer, the gnomes will have already gotten a divorce!

BTW, any mention of the gnomes' having a wedding cake in the module?

Now that would've been an ironic place to put the mimic.

"At this wedding, the cake takes a bite of you!"

Kinda tempting to actually try that, now...

Note that the cake would of course have to be of sufficiently lavish proportions to satisfy Jeff's Rules of Mimic Mass and Volume.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1111495If this thread goes on any longer, the gnomes will have already gotten a divorce!

BTW, any mention of the gnomes' having a wedding cake in the module?

This is also tangential, but related to gaming as well.  In the historical world, death tended to be pretty common.  Blended families (like from Cinderella) were very common because first one spouse would die, there would be a remarriage, then another would die.  The 'til death do us part' of wedding tended to be a matter of a relatively short time for at least one half of the happy couple.  

It's speculated that one reason that divorce is so common now is that we tend to live much longer - as people change over time the things that brought you together become less relevant and you might grow apart.  

I wonder if something like that would be reflected in the marriage/mating rituals of more long-lived races.  For example, perhaps Elves would be more likely to consider a 'pairing' for the specific purpose of having/raising a kid but staying with someone for centuries might be considered crazy.  In terms of making demihuman cultures more distinct, it might be something to consider.  For myself, I do like to make demihumans different among themselves, so the dwarves of one region will have different cultural practices from the dwarves of another region (for example, one might have long braided beards and the other have short or NO BEARDS).

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1111497Note that the cake would of course have to be of sufficiently lavish proportions to satisfy Jeff's Rules of Mimic Mass and Volume.

.

I have a PhD in Mimic Volumetrics!

Quote from: Giant Octopodes;1111494And how does this relates to gaming?

When asking if someone has contributed anything meaningful to a discussion, you might want to take a moment to self reflect, and ask if, by doing so, you are contributing anything meaningful to the discussion yourself.  Otherwise it just REEKS of hypocrisy and lack of self awareness.  To answer your question, though, it relates in that content providers (in this case stores, but similarly applicable to conventions, publishers, or any other content provider) will bend to the will of folks who are outraged at the content being provided far too readily in my opinion, and engage in self censorship for the sake of avoiding offense, no matter how ridiculous that offense may be.  It's a direct parallel to the idea of not producing content which involves sexual orientation for the sake of avoiding offending those who might find such content problematic, as well as a direct response to the claim #3 of the quoted post which indicated that "Everything is disrespectful" to certain people.  The hint, by the way, might be in the final line of the quoted post ;-)

Tangental?  Sure!  But it adds *something* to the conversation, and even if only tangentially relates to gaming and the topic at hand.  How about your post, how does it hold up in that regard?

A sword is just a dagger on steroids.

Just because you add *something* to the conversation, doesn't mean that it enriches it.

You missed the entire point. It isn't that people are homophobic or sex phobic, it is that when those subjects are shoved in to 5E adventures, it has been done poorly with characters written badly and completely disregards the people who are sitting around the table about to play that game (you know, the consumers). Some don't want anything about uncommon sexual orientations at all in their games, there are those who want their freak flags to fly in full rainbow colors in their games, but the tone of that should be decided by the individual game group and not by the publisher.

Yes, WotC can choose to put whatever they want in their products. Just as people can choose not to buy those products.

In fact, if you want since I'm done with it, I will send you my copy of the Essentials Kit. Free. I'll keep the dice and rulebook, the rest is pretty substandard IMHO and should to someone who likes it.

Quote from: jeff37923;1111517In fact, if you want since I'm done with it, I will send you my copy of the Essentials Kit. Free. I'll keep the dice and rulebook, the rest is pretty substandard IMHO and should to someone who likes it.

If that's a serious offer, I have a friend in Knoxville that can pick it up from you...

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111529If that's a serious offer, I have a friend in Knoxville that can pick it up from you...

Serious offer. Going to Giant Octopodes first, though. If he doesn't want it, then you can have it.

If that were a heterosexual couple the same author would have had the female ruler going mad and the male ruler would be down in the dungeon every night enforcing his conjugal rights just to highlight  how all women are victims.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111498This is also tangential, but related to gaming as well.  In the historical world, death tended to be pretty common.  Blended families (like from Cinderella) were very common because first one spouse would die, there would be a remarriage, then another would die.  The 'til death do us part' of wedding tended to be a matter of a relatively short time for at least one half of the happy couple.  

It's speculated that one reason that divorce is so common now is that we tend to live much longer - as people change over time the things that brought you together become less relevant and you might grow apart.  

I wonder if something like that would be reflected in the marriage/mating rituals of more long-lived races.  For example, perhaps Elves would be more likely to consider a 'pairing' for the specific purpose of having/raising a kid but staying with someone for centuries might be considered crazy.  In terms of making demihuman cultures more distinct, it might be something to consider.  For myself, I do like to make demihumans different among themselves, so the dwarves of one region will have different cultural practices from the dwarves of another region (for example, one might have long braided beards and the other have short or NO BEARDS).

Elves in my setting are supposed to be  serially monotonous, I mean monogamous. That is, they pair up for a few centuries and raise a child. Some couples stay together longer and one couple in the Westwood keep marrying one another and have had three kids. That's scandalous. Elves keep to their vows more often than not but the exceptions are spectacular.

Well I have been working through Tomb slowly and I may be coming to a sort of realization here...

So far the module/campaign has been consistently spartan with describing its NPCs. Even what should be major ones. And this is true in the other ones I have so far.

I am starting to suspect that what we are seeing is a design choice or mandate of somesort. And it harkens back to early D&D modules which were sometimes also rather spartan with their descriptions of NPCs and monsters. Yes there is a little more on a few NPCs in the back of the module. But some of that is more or less recaps or collections of what is in the module proper. So my impression is that for the modules at least they have adapted more or less a "make of it what you will" approach to NPCs. Just like in older modules.

One of the odd omissions in the back though is Valindra. Her background in the module amounts to a paragraph or two that mostly just pertains to the situation. Any DM not allready knowing who she is will walk away from this one knowing still pretty much nothing about her past a few salient details.

So the odd lack of detail on the gnomes in Essentials may just be a continuation of this spartan NPC approach. Essentials has that same vibe for NPCs. They tend to get a sentence at best. A half paragraph if lucky.